Compare And Contrast Gilgamesh And Daniel Boone

1059 Words5 Pages

In several ways, the story of Daniel Boone is both similar to and different from other myths associated with national leaders such as Gilgamesh. Similar to Gilgamesh and his conquest of Humbaba, Boone is a natural leader who sets out on a quest of sorts in order to better the lives of the folks back home by conquering the Native Americans who threatened those who were recently moving to Kentucky. Boone loses his son, reflecting how Gilgamesh’s best friend, Enkidu, died, which deeply affect both men and inspire them to undertake perilous journeys in search of meanings within nature. Both men’s legacies, to varying degrees, are based on historical facts, despite each of them being shrouded in some extent in fantasy. Boone’s story differs from …show more content…

This often occurs naturally as the same story is passed down for countless generations, and sometimes to the point where historians have an increasingly difficult time separating fact from fiction. This is not the case when it comes to Daniel Boone’s story, which, for a significant portion, is known to have been altered and even fabricated by storytellers in order to boost the excitement for their target audiences. Boone’s story developed this way, because, as there are an increasing amount of records, accounts, and documents which present a remarkable amount of factual information about Boone’s life, there was just not enough mystery and wonder surrounding his original story in order to capture, hold, and impact the public. Therefore, in order to boost the appeal, aspects of his life, such as his wife and attitude towards farming, had to remain more in the dark while the tales of his adventures in the wilderness were boasted proudly to anyone willing to …show more content…

As is known, there is indeed a significant amount of truth to John Filson’s story of Daniel Boone, with most of the accuracy relating to Boone’s heightened “skill” at being an excellent hunter, explorer, and husband. However, in order to appeal to the widest audience possible and to fit the archetype of a “hero,” Filson did “careful reworking of Boone’s statements and of the legends that Filson had heard about Boone from his fellow frontiersmen” (639). Many other myths operate in a similar fashion—exaggerating, stretching, or even changing facts and events in order to boost the appeal of the hero to the audience, as it elicits a better and stronger response from the audience. Similar to the way that Filson developed his tale of Daniel Boone following meeting the legend himself, many people develop and evolve myths based on the reputation of the people and figures that they aim to include in their stories. For example, in older times, if a real life figure is known throughout the land for successfully leading armies into battle in order to defeat all foes, then a writer may decide to emphasize that aspect of their character’s life and what led them to become the “fierce warrior who slain an entire army with nothing but a single sword and a cold look in his eye” rather than the

Open Document